The age-related peak incidence for a diagnosis of cancer of the cervix is 44 years of age. In the 40 – 44 year age group, the MDH says that there are 14 newly diagnosed cervical cancers per 100,000 per year, which means that 99,986 out of every 100,000 44 year-old women will not be diagnosed with cervical cancer in any given year. (Incidence is the term for the number of new cases of a disease diagnosed during a specified period of time.)

By the age of 50, the CDC reports, more than 80% of American women will have been infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) during their lifetimes. And yet, amazingly, over 99,000 out of every 100,000 women will never be diagnosed with cervical cancer. (It is useful to point out that deaths from cervical cancer are an even more miniscule 1.5 cases per 100,000 female population per year.) Those statistics say that the vast majority of girls who don’t go along with the crowd and refuse the vaccine recommendations will never get cervical cancer.

The question that should come to everybody’s mind: “Why vaccinate millions of young girls (and boys) when the entirely theoretical chance of any of them ever getting cervical cancer approaches zero? (See supporting data below.)

Not only that, but skeptical parents will save a ton of money (an outrageous $140 per shot, plus office call charge) as well avoiding the distinct possibility of seeing their children become chronically ill with one or more autoimmune disorders that are becoming increasingly common among fully vaccinated children.

Some Statistics That Merck, Glaxo and the AAP Don’t Want Doctors – or Their Patients – to Understand

The American Cancer Society estimates that 12,000 American women are diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer annually in the United States. There are 170,000,000 females in the U.S. The math says that 0.0061% of the females in the U.S. (12,000 divided by 170,000,000 X 100% = 0.0061%) will get cervical cancer next year – an infinitesimally small number. But that means that 99.9939% of Minnesotan females will not get cervical cancer next year even it they are unvaccinated and even though 80% of them will probably get an HPV infection during their lifetimes. That is a chance many will logically choose to take.

Those stats represent pretty good odds, even considering the fact that 60,000,000 American females are under the age of 30. In that age group cancer of the cervix is essentially non-existent. For the over 30 group the number of women who will never get cervical cancer still amounts to 99.989% (12,000 divided by 110,000,000 X 100% = 0.011% and 100% – 0.011% = 99.989%), even though 80% of them might get infected with an HPV infection.

Correlation does not Necessarily Mean Causation

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),which is usually careful to use the term “associated” rather than the term “causative” when it comes to HPV-associated cervical cancers,says that “Not all cancers termed ‘HPV-associated’ reflect actual HPV infections, and the numbers judged to be HPV-attributable are only estimates.”

Astonishingly, but not surprisingly, ever since America’s over-vaccination program began in the 1990s (soon after President Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 federal law outlawing medico-legal lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers when children died or were disabled because of vaccine injuries), up to 30% of fully vaccinated American children are now becoming chronically ill.

Cause and effect? The answer is probably yes, because the basic neuroscience research questioning the safety and efficacy of many vaccines is powerfully in the affirmative. But such research almost never gets published in the popular medical journals that take pharmaceutical industry money (pharmaceutical industry grants or pharmaceutical industry advertising) or whose board members have undisclosed professional or monetary pro-vaccine conflicts of interest.

Thus, most physicians will never read the important research findings from un-conflicted or altruistic researchers. Sadly, if any unwelcome research that counters the “conventional wisdom from Big Pharma” are published (especially if they endanger present or future corporate profits), the article is likely to be withdrawn from publication or redacted from past publications. Witness the experiences of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Dr. Chris Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic when their well-done, peer-reviewed research articles that questioned the alleged safety or efficacy of vaccines were withdrawn from publication after the articles had passed the peer review process and had already been published.

More Disturbing Information About the HPV Bandwagon

Merck’s Gardasil and GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix both contain genetically-engineered subunit protein antigens (not actual viral particles) that are capable of generating immune complexes with the essential help of the neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant that attaches to the protein antigen. The aluminum is added to the vaccine so that the antigen persists in the muscle tissue and in the macrophages for a long time. (Macrophagic ingestion of aluminum-coated antigens is how the aluminum passes through the blood-brain-barrier and into the vaccinee’s brain.)

The synthesized HPV protein antigens (virus-like particles [aka VLPs] that are in both HPV vaccines) are produced in cultured yeast cells. Q: What could possibly go wrong with this extremely complex, nearly incomprehensible manufacturing process? A: Only the super-secret pharmaceutical industry factories and their (mad?) scientists know the answers, but un-conflicted, altruistic basic neuroscience researchers have their suspicions, and they are trying to warn vulnerable people.

Medical Journalists Mainly Use as Their Source Material Propaganda From Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment

There is another aspect about the wide-spread disinformation surrounding the promotion of prescription drugs and vaccines, which always starts with cunningly well-designed multi-billion dollar propaganda campaigns from Big Pharma. Medical journalists rely a lot on biased information gleaned from popular medical journal articles (that are often ghost-written by someone other than the listed authors) or from corporate press releases. In either case the information always benefits the for-profit pharmaceutical corporations and the private ”research” companies who perform the studies for large sums of money.

The majority of the medical establishment, including many in the nursing profession, relies on the same corporate-generated information, and they have succumbed to the multi-billion dollar ad campaigns that urge – or even guilt – parents and guardians to force their dependent pre-teen and young teenage girls to submit – against their better instincts – to the series of three intramuscular injections, each of which, as mentioned above, contains an aluminum adjuvant that is known to be neurotoxic and fully capable of producing hyper-immunity and chronic autoimmune disorders.

But the most serious criticism that I have concerning the intense push for adolescent girls to receive the shot is that there is no proof (only theory) that the shots will actually prevent cancer of the cervix 20 – 50 years hence, among any of the 99.99% of the female population. Proof of Big Pharma’s claim will have to wait for a generation or two, and by that time nobody will care if the vaccines worked or not. What parents are told is not enough to make an informed decision. All they have is a plausible theory, intense, unrelenting pressure from a previously honorable medical profession, lab evidence that temporary immune complexes do form after three shots and a cunning billion-dollar ad campaign.

Alarmingly, the Big Pharma-influenced FDA approved both Gardasil and Cervarix without requiring either Merck or GlaxoSmithKline to prove their claims of cervical cancer prevention! Both corporations say that vaccine recipients must continue getting regular Pap smears for the rest of their lives, a certain sign of no confidence in their immensely profitable products. That reality should make everybody, especially physicians, re-think their belief systems.

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?

One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”

However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.

The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.

Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.

In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.

Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.

These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.

In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.